Skip to main content

tv   Your World With Neil Cavuto  FOX News  June 18, 2018 1:00pm-2:00pm PDT

1:00 pm
you're not talking about whether there was bias in the recommendation not to prosecution. >> correct. >> you're not saying you didn't find bias. in the e-mails that we've had a lot of discussion about here. >> i think it's clear from certainly the text messages that we talked about with regard to mr. strzok, he had a bias state of mind. >> as i said from reading the report, not only mr. strzok but a number of those that you found concerning comments expressed remorse, said that they intended for these to be private conversations and then said it didn't have anything to to with the way they did that job. is that correct? >> that was their explanations. >> you said you don't have any different evidence than that. you're not saying you believe it or not. you don't have different evidence. >> correct. >> i think that's a lot difference than saying there's
1:01 pm
no bias personally. secondly, you said i believe somewhere in the report that with regard to the charging decisions since that decision was made not by those that you found the bias from but from others and this would be prosecutors, not fbi correct? >> correct. >> that you felt that whatever bias they had at least as to the charging decision did not flow through, even though -- can you say that that's true even though in this case the director of the fbi gave a charging recommendation? >> yeah, i would use the same language that you used that we didn't see evidence of that in the documentary or testimony that we received. >> i personally believed there was plenty of evidence, although it may be circumstantial, that the recommendation made by the director of the fbi was influenced by bias.
1:02 pm
would you agree with that? we -- speaking of political bias, we didn't see that back in july from the fbi director in terms of why he made his decision to make the public statement he did. >> i understand. i understand that what -- tell me if i'm getting this right. what you're telling me, you found bias. those that you found the bias among said, well, we didn't let it bleed into our work performance and you don't have evidence to disprove that. >> correct. we also said it cast a cloud over the work done and also about the investigation. >> thank you. that gets me to the next thing. i'll move to you, mr. wray, director wray. that's the leaks. there's been a lot of talks here about the leaks. i don't have tame to question it now because my time is running out too fast. if i understand -- let me go
1:03 pm
back. you indicated -- i looked at appendix g and h. i would recommend every one look at appendix g and h to see pictorially orographically what it is you're talking about. although i accept what you say, director, that this is not a reflection on the entire fbi, it's a big deal in terms of numbers and in terms of the issue that is at stake here. so again, back to you director wray. you indicated you adopted a new rule in november. what is that, quickly. >> there's a number of parts to the new rule. the most important of which is to make clear that only certain very select number of people in the organization are allowed to talk to the media without permission and number 2, i'm oversimplifying in the interest of time, number 2 that any contacts from the media to anybody else have to get reported.
1:04 pm
so that way you can't have somebody say, oh, they contacted me. what i want to be clear on, everybody understands the rules are crystal clear so that then if we find violations it makes it much easier and more efficient if you will to make sure that we're holding people accountable. >> and there will be stiff penalties. >> absolutely. >> you indicated you created a leak investigation unit. it's critical. could you tell us what you're doing there? >> that leak unit sometimes leaks are criminal and sometimes they're not. sometimes they're awful but not criminal. so one of the ways that can be a concern of the criminal laws is
1:05 pm
1:06 pm
1:07 pm
in terms of classified information. the leak unit is targeted very specifically on anything that has to do with leaks of classified information, mishandling, et cetera. >> i'd recommend to you that you may want to have a leak investigation yaw it in for nonclassified leaks. there's serious problems when they happen as well. with the time i've got left, i'd like to change topics once more and go back to the meeting between hillary clinton and -- between bill clinton and loretta lynch on the tarmac in phoenix. mr. horowitz, you indicated once again, i think your language was, that while you indicated the meeting was not an accidental meeting but unplanned, correct? >> yes. >> how do you know it was unplanned? >> based on the records we reviewed. at least from the attdota this report has no bearing on whether the fbi is capable of conducting its role in the mueller investigati investigation? >> i don't think it speaks to the special counsel investigation. >> general horowitz, this past december, six months before the i.g., your report was released. the justice department invited a group of reporters in to review the texts that have been discussed here from the two fbi agents. i'm concerned -- many of us are concerned about what seems to be a collective disclosure on parts of the report at that time. it's clear that at that time at least the investigation had not been completed and therefore the disclosure parts of the report were without the public having
1:08 pm
the full context of the findings of the report. do you believe that press conference holding it when it was held to be atypical of the department's practices as it relates to revealing information to the public? >> frankly i don't have all the details of how that occurred. i know it did occur. we made clear we were not consulted beforehand. i'll say on the question of whether there were appropriatists with congress or not is something that i did testify to. there was legitimate oversight. >> my question is about the press conference held. do you believe it was consistent with the department's general practice, the department of justice. >> you know, i'd have to talk with folks there. i'm not sure i'm in a position to give opinion without understanding more as to their rationale on that. >> will you open an investigation into the cause and the reasons for that press
1:09 pm
conference? and also the investigation into what called for that press conference? >> senator, i believe there might be privacy act litigation going on. i'd want to look at that. as you know, we don't step into the middle of active matters. let me look at that and i'll be happy to spoke with you and your staff about it. >> thank you. is there anything in this report to suggest that the fbi is unable or incapable of conducting current or future investigations in a fair and partial manner? >> no, not at all. we speak to this report, to this matter. is there anything in your report to suggest that special counsel mueller is not able to partner with the rbi to conduct his investigation in a facial and impartial manner? >> i would echo director wray. this handles clinton e-mail review. >> june 25, 2018, the president
1:10 pm
said why is it taking so long for the inspector general's on crooked hillary and slippery james comey. in the same tweet, he said he knew about the subject stance of the report and said there's so many horrible things to tell public has a right to know. june 14th, the report was released to the public. when was the report completed? >> it's completed when we release it. >> the same day? >> the day we as per usual practice, the day before the report is released publicly, we provide it to the department and the fbi. >> did you provide it to the white house? >> we do not do that. >> do you direct -- >> the department has to make that conclusion is. the fbi has to make that conclusion. every report is different and stands on its own. we've had instances as i would testify to in terms of fast and furious, there was disclosures to the white house about it for
1:11 pm
various reasons. there can be a basis to do it. it's something that you'd have to direct the department for an answer. >> was the report completed then? i think you said this but i'd like the clarification. was your report completed or was there a draft to any agency outside of your i.g.'s office before or on june 5 of 2018? >> so following our normal practice as we do in every report and as we did in this report, we provide a draft copy of it to the department and in this case the fbi to review and this was in mid may, to review and to provide us with what we call a review to determine if there's grand jury, title three, other classified information that would be appropriate to be public. in fact, in this case, there
1:12 pm
was. at our request the department went to court and got unsealing orders so what you see her is unredacted and full. >> did it include your findings? >> yes. and did anybody press us to make changes, we were not pressured in any way. we followed our usual practice. >> were you requested to change the findings? >> we're asked routinely by people that are commenting in here and others to rethink -- >> let's talk about this case. >> i am talking about this case. individuals as well to look at, this. >> did anyone in the white house ask you -- >> we had no communications at all with the white house. >> okay. director wray, you've talked as we've talked about the duties and responsibilities and ethics of a prosecutor. i appreciate you're enjoying that, being a practicing lawyer anymore. but i'd like to ask you, the
1:13 pm
report notes that criticizing individuals for conduct does not warrant prosecution. it's something that the department doesn't do. as a former prosecutor, as a citizen, a director of the fbi, do you agree that when director comey concluded that the conduct did not to a prosecutable offense that he should have refrained from commentary? >> senator, the policies of the department has governing commently about uncharged conduct are there nor a good reason. having been a prosecutor, i've been a defense attorney. i've had clients impacted by those policies and norms there there for a reason and i expect to follow them. >> i appreciate the point you made about the new policies in
1:14 pm
place. i join my colleagues praising and thanking the men and women of your agency for the work they do and much of that work has happened in california. on behalf of them, i thank you for that. >> thank you. >> you mentioned a number of -- the report mentioned a number of recommendations. director wray, if you'll commit to enforcing the policy that prohibits the didn't and its employees from publicly discussing the conduct of uncharged individuals. >> yes, that's part of our remedial action. >> will you commit to enforcing the department of justice policy that prohibits the department and its employees from taking investigative steps that could impact an election? >> we would follow department policy on that and expect -- my understanding from the inspector general's report is there may be room for the department to be more clear about what that policy is. there is a pretty longstanding
1:15 pm
norm that applies to it. whether the policies themselves are clear enough is up to debate and i think we would work with the department and follow whatever the policy is. >> thank you. if you could follow up with the committee, that would be great. nothing else. >> senator kennedy. >> general, a couple of brief questions first. can we agree that the fbi is the premier law enforcement agency ever? >> i will say one of them since i oversee -- >> can we agree the fbi has about 37,000 employees? >> yes. >> can we agree that there were and perhaps a small minority of bad apples? >> any orriganization you'll ha problems. >> can we agree that director wray has the authority to find
1:16 pm
the bad apples and determinate them with extreme prejudice. >> yes. >> and prefer them for prosecution if necessary? >> yes. >> can we agree that mr. comey was intentionally subordinate? >> yes. >> can we agree that insubordination in particular intentional can be a symptom of managerial bias? >> it could be. >> did you think that mr. comey was biassed or unbiassed and did not act on his bias? >> we found no evidence that he was politically biassed. that's what we were looking at and asked to look at. >> can we agree that bias is a state of mind? >> yes. >> can we agree the only person that truly knows that person's
1:17 pm
state of mind is that person unless he's insane? >> yes or memorializes it or tells somebody about it. >> did you find any indication that mr. comey was insane? >> no, we did not. >> are you referring mr. comey for prosecution? >> there's no referral here to him. >> could a u.s. attorney who might have jurisdiction decide to prosecute? >> the department as a whole can look at this report and take whatever action it deems appropriate. >> okay. if an anybody agent lies to the fbi, that's insubordination too, isn't it? >> a clear violation of rules and i think you could characterize it as insubordinate for following the rules. >> like mr. mccabe? >> i'll refrain from speaking about that. >> so mr. mccabe who was insubordinate gets referred for prosecution but mr. comey who
1:18 pm
was insubordinate doesn't get referred but he gets to keep his pension and his book deals. is that habit the deal? >> i'll just -- well-before we finish this report, mr. comey had stepped -- had been terminated and no longer at the fbi. >> but he can still be prosecuted. >> in theory, yes. >> i want to read you some of the e-mails and texts that came out of your report. these were all e-mails, instant messages by senior members of the fbi. they were involved in the clinton e-mail investigation. the russian investigation, the mueller investigation and in some cases all three. 8- 8-16-15. peter strzok. bernie sanders is an idiot like
1:19 pm
trump. lisa page. she said trump called him the p word. the man has no dignity or class. he simply cannot be president. 2-12-16. peter strzok. trump is abysmal. rubio will likely lose to cruz. 3-3-16. lisa page. god, trump is a loathsome human. 3-3-16. strzok, trump is and idiot. lisa page. trump made a comment about his -- i won't say the word, this man cannot be president. day after the election, 11-9, 2016, fbi employee. quote "all the people that were
1:20 pm
initially voting for her would not and were not swayed by any decision the fbi put out. trump supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy pieces of s that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. they probably didn't watch the debates, are not fully educated on his policy and stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm." 11-8-16. agent 1. you think hrc is going to win, right? you think we should get nails and boards in case she doesn't? same day, fbi agent 5. she better win. otherwise i'm going to be walking around with both of my guns. day after the election. 11-9-2016. fbi agent 2. i'm numb. later, same day, "i'm so stressed about what i could have done differently ".
1:21 pm
last one. day after the election attorney 2. i can't imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress that we made the last eight years. the affordable care act is gone. who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people and crap is true. i feel like there's going to be a lot more gun issues, too. general, do you believe in the tooth fairy? >> nope. >> do you believe in the easter bunny? >> nope. >> do you believe that jimmy ho hoffa died of natural causes? >> not based on what i read. >> do you honestly believe that the american people are doing to look at this report and look at
1:22 pm
those e-mails and not believe that there was bias and people acting on bias and that the fix was in at the fbi? >> i completely understand the concerns, senator and that's why we laid this out here and that's why we found that it impacts the credibility of the handling of the investigation and the -- what we say here is not, as senator crapo mentioned, which is that there was no bias, but rather what we were asked to look at is whether the specific decisions we reviewed were affected by bias. those particular decisions here were that we're talking about were decisions made mostly by the prosecutors, not by any of the individuals you just indicated. and where there was that concern, which was in october
1:23 pm
where agent strzok was in fact a decision maker, it's precisely -- >> let me stop you. if i go now, i can get in one more question. your classified mdex. >> yes. >> does it con taped or discussion and e-mail that refers to a conversation with attorney general lynch and a person by the name of amanda renterria? >> i'm not sure what i can say about that publicly given it's -- given the matter is classified. so i would ask you if i can get back to you on that. i'm hesitant to say anything in the public forum about that. >> would you allow our chairman and our ranking member to see the classified -- >> absolutely. what we're trying to do, senator is -- what ended up happening is because of the nature of the information, it was classified
1:24 pm
at such a high level by the intelligence community, we don't make that decision by the intelligence communicate at this time. it limited the members that can see it as well as the staffs what we're doing right now is and i ask the deputy attorney general's office to help facilitate this, to go back to the tell community and let us know how we can address whatever caused this to be classified at that high level so we can make sure that we can write it at a level and get it to the members, including answer to the question you raised promptly. they told us they're doing that. we very much want the committee to see this information. >> yours was a very professional report. don't agree with all the conclusions, but i want to thank you. >> thank you. >> senator whitehouse. >> director wray, thanks for
1:25 pm
sticking up for your organization. director horowitz, thanks for the thoroughness here. i want to go back on something that's been touched here. i want to hammer it home. there's prosecutors and investigators all over this country who look up to you, who looked up to director comey and who take a lesson from what they see. when i heard director comey have derogatory investigate ty information about an uncharged person, i was stunned. director comey, you said the rules about that are there for a reason just to make it perfectly clear, can i ask you what is the reason that we do not want prosecutors to be discharging
1:26 pm
derogatory information about uncharged persons? >> senator, my understanding has always been that the purpose behind those rules and norms is that prosecutors speak through charging documents and that the reason for that is because then the individuals who are charged have an opportunity to have their day in court and defend themselves. whereas the public states about uncharged conduct could afford that opportunity. >> could move over the line about prosecutorial conduct. >> it could. >> in fact, even where there is a charged person, do you need disclose derogatory inveries --
1:27 pm
investigative information outside of the proper channels of the prosecution? >> in the charged contact, we tried hard to make sure our public statements stay within the four corners of the charging documents until the case has reached a conclusion and then we would talk about the evidence at trial or something like that. >> as having been a u.s. attorney, there was a department rule that makes clear that the department can't speak publicly about an unindicted co conspirator. the individual that who the department concluded was a co-contributor. >> that's why we make that norm. >> correct. >> i don't believe that if he had not violated that norm he
1:28 pm
would have ever been testifying in congress. it's bizarre to have the director of the fbi to testify in congress about a case particularly that may congress. i don't think if he stuck to the rules there there would have been anything for congress to look into. we don't discuss cases, don't discuss investigative information. we worked hard and that's the end of it. if he hadn't had that conversation in congress, i don't think you would have felt the same about the wiener laptop information and the second information of derogatory inv t investigative information wouldn't have taken place. for one nail, all of this unravelled for the detriment of comey's investigation and to the detriment of the fbi. i thank you to try to put this back together, director wray.
1:29 pm
if political advantage to president trump and candidate trump was not director comey's motivation in making those statements and if it's corollary political damage to secretary clinton was not director comey's motive in making that statement, what was? to the best of your knowledge. >> what we describe here is his explanation is he thought there needed to be unusual transparency given the nature hoff the case, the high profile nature and his belief the integrity of the anybody and the justice department depended on standing out there and explain what the decision was, why the decision was made and that he was uniquely situated to do
1:30 pm
that. >> do you find that credible? >> that he believed that? >> yes. >> that he was right about it? >> that he was right about this? no. as we lay out here, that's the responsibility of the attorney general or the deputy attorney general. the highest ranking, whether it's the u.s. attorney -- the highest ranging prosecutor has to make that decision. under our system, they're accountable to the public, to this committee and to the organizati organization. >> did you come across any evidence that he was worried about his own reputation? >> we had a lot of testimony as to why he did what he did. the integrity of the fbi and the organization. and it really is a series of explanations to individuals as to what they believed. >> director wray, when should criminal investigations be wrapped up?
1:31 pm
>> that's hard to answer that in a general way. when the work is done is the most short-handed way of putting it. >> how often the legislative opinion about when a criminal investigation should be wrapped up a proper factor to consider in wrapping up the investigation? >> it's hard for me to think of a situation that we would consider. >> i can't think of one either. how is a subject lawyer's opinion on when an investigation should be wrapped up a proper factor to determine the wrapping up of a criminal investigation? >> that is even harder for me to imagine. >> i suspect would be hard for united states attorney guliani to imagine when he was going after anthony solerno for years if anthony solerno's lawyers had
1:32 pm
said to him, it's been a year, time to wrap it up. i want to put that context out there. finally with respect to obstruction of justice, which you've said is something that should be taken extremely seriously after the federal level. official acts can be obstruction of justice, correct? >> that's a legal question that i'll leave to the lawyers. >> would you stop an obstruction of justice investigation if it involved an official act or would you consider to investigate? the obstruction was also an official act. >> well, again, i'd have to look at the law on the subject. my impression is if we had evidence that suggested there was a possible violation of the obstruction statutes, we would can't to investigate it. >> and a lawyer for a subject -- >> a lawyer can obstruct justice
1:33 pm
in an investigation. >> absolutely. >> okay. my time is up. >> senator sass. >> thank you. mr. horowitz, who is sheryl mills and heather samuel son? >> mrs. mills was a counselor at the state department for mrs. clinton and -- >> why do they show up in your report? >> several reasons. on the one hand, after they left the state department and secretary clinton left the state department, they culled through secretary clinton's e-mails to decide which ones they concluded were work related and which ones weren't. the ones that were work related were forwarded to the state department. they were involved there. in addition, they appear as we describe here at secretary clinton's interview on july 2 representing her as her lawyer. >> so they have professional relationships in the government,
1:34 pm
professional relationships outside the government compensated as lawyers, personal relationships and political relationships and allowed to accompany secretary clinton to her interview. how can that be? >> we describe what the rationale given to us as we lay out here. we think it was inconsistent and we're concerned about it. >> were they ultimately involved in expunging evidence that was criminal? >> they were ultimately involved in instructing individuals to remove, destroy when they had concluded were nonwork-related e-mails. i'll leave it to others decide what that meant as a legal matter. >> so were they a target of an investigation themselves? >> from our review here, what we were told is that the only individual considered for potential charging decision was secretary clinton. as we noted here, nobody was listed as a subject of this
1:35 pm
investigation at in point in time. >> can you think of any other investigation that has no subject of the investigation? >> i think you probably could have a circumstance. i'd leave to it director wray. there was a focus of who was the individual or individuals that were ininvolved in the events that would be surprising. >> director wray, can you give me an example of any situation like this, where people were involunteer'd in the destruction of criminal evidence and would be allowed to accompany a subjected subject of investigation but not named target subject of an investigation? any example anywhere like that? >> it's hard for me to come up with one. in my experience, subjects don't accompany each other to interviews. >> i asked director comey about this in a hearing. i think probably spring, summer of 2016 on the homeland security
1:36 pm
committee. he said that when you're trying to get information out of a witness who -- a subject -- i don't remember the term that he used, but when you're trying to get information and compel them and may take a long time, if you have to subpoena them, you would do things like this. can you think of any examples like that? >> again,'s already testified to my experience. i'm reluctant to ever speak in terms of something never ever happening. because in my experience, there's very few absolutes in this world. certainly the norm would be what i described. >> it's truly bizarre. mr. horowitz, can you tell us about the president's comments on the investigation of hillary clinton's e-mails in the spring and summer of 2016? >> yeah, there were several occasions when either president obama or his press secretary made comments about the clinton e-mail investigation and as we describe here, that raised concerns by the -- both the
1:37 pm
investigative team. always we also described, one of the reasons cited to us by director comey that he had to go it alone. >> many of us are concerned about the erosion of norms, article 2, commenting on john going investigations is a terrible thing in 2017-18 and a terrible thing in 2016. can you tell us about inside the department of justice? the president of the united states commenting on an investigation was a problem? does the attorney general know that this was a problem? >> it was a concern. we described in detail the surprise and concern. in fact, the attorney general and the justice department reached out to the white house how did this occur, why did it occur and did it continue.
1:38 pm
>> and that's general lynch at that time. >> that's correct. >> so general lunch would seemingly be a person that wants to guard the integrity of these norms and yet she's meeting with the former president of the united states, the husband of someone being investigated even if not being named as a subject and once she had crossed this line of having sat on the tarmac with president clinton, what steps did she take? >> at that point, she went to the department ethics officer for an ethics opinion whether it required her to recuse, which as you know is one step. there's two parts. there's the mandatory recusal and the laws are call narrow as to that. there's the permissive recusal provisions. she went and got an opinion as to whether she was required to recuse. she decided that she would not recuse on the permissive basis. and then publicly announced july
1:39 pm
what her role would be going forward. as we describe here, why found it confusing and unclear what she was telling the public her role would be because on the one hand she was saying that she following her normal practice that she intended to accept the recommendation and on the other hand said she would accept the recommendation. not clear what that meant since there are potential conflicts between those two. >> not clear to the bureau, not clear to the public and the press. >> correct. >> shifting gear. you said you would institute new training about leaks in the pure row. thank you. it's clearly necessary. can you give the lay man summary on what official agents are allowed to talk to the press
1:40 pm
about? when and why? >> it's hard to put it in one thumbnail. certainly there's things like sticking within the charging documents. wouldn't talk about i don't know going investigations publicly. there's situations that we talk about an arrest. you often she an sac in a field office doing a press conference together with partners announcing an arrest. those are some of the kinds of situations. the reason wove had a very specific, detailed policy is to make sure that everybody understands what the rules are. one of the things having put the new policy in place, we need to pound home the importance of the policy. i want everybody in our organization to understand the rules so that a, the 99.9% of them that follow them follow
1:41 pm
them and b, the remaining percent, it's very easy to pursue an appropriate investigation. >> director wray, we're glad you're there your agency is incredibly important to the american people and there's been a massive breach of public trust and there's a lot of people pulling for you. >> mr. horowitz, you just testified just now that president obama's comments about the clinton investigation in 2015 caused you concern. so you must be very concerned about president trump's on doing comments about the current investigation and his pardon powers. >> what i said, the comments about president obama at the time were of concern to the people doing the investigating. so frankly what we were looking
1:42 pm
at is what individuals told us. i'm not going to speak to what the reaction would be in the fbi or elsewhere with regard to current concerns. the director can speak to that question better than i. >> so do you have concerns about the president's ongoing comments about the mueller investigation, including use of his pardon powers? >> senator a lot of opinions out there. i focus on the work itself and following the rules and i will add that there's a reason why i always say that we are going to do our work independently and objectively no matter who likes it. >> thank you. very re-assuring. unfortunately these kinds of comment do sway the public. when director comey came before this committee on may 3 and he was fired on may 9, some of us on this committee including myself questioned why he made
1:43 pm
all of those derogatory and prejudicial comments about hillary clinton in jury. so commenting publicly about unchartable conduct is not fbi policy then or now, correct? >> senator, i'm not aware of any policy that permitted it at the time. as i said, we're working on policies to make even more clear things that may have been less clear before. >> good. thank you. mr. horowitz, i'd like to follow up about the difference between gross negligence and extremely careless. you said it was just a political difference, but that's not true. there's a legal difference. in fact, you spent a few pages of your report explaining the difference and you made clear how unified the team, your team was in its early decision or the fbi team was on its early decision there was no evidence that senator clinton intentio l intentionally or wilfully
1:44 pm
mishandled classified information. so your answer made it sound as if senator clinton did not have the requisite for a criminal charge. i'd like to give you a chance top correct that impression. >> it wasn't my chance in leaving that impression. the concern we highlight here is by drafting a statement where he said he believed there was gross negligence and turning it into extremely chairless was precisely the concern that many people commented on. people viewed it as close and roughly one in the same. i understand the former has a legal meaning and the latter doesn't but to the public at large, that was the concern that the prosecutors and others had about his comment. >> it's really important for
1:45 pm
director comey to be careful in the use of these terms. he shouldn't have editorialized it to begin with. the showing that needed to happen before any criminal prosecution of senator clinton, there had to be intent. there was no intent. so in my view when director come my said extremely careless, that was being very careless on his part. i want to go on to something else that was brought out at this hearing. one of my colleagues said earlier that clearly strzok didn't want donald trump elected. if that is true and this is for either one of you, if that is true, why do you think he did not leak any information about the trump russian investigation that was also ongoing during the time of the 2016 election? >> the argument he made to us as
1:46 pm
to why there was evidence that he wasn't biassed is precisely that argument. i don't think that that necessarily closes off the bias question because he didn't violate a rule regarding leaking though. >> the fact is that the public did not know that there was an investigation over russia's attempts the interfere with our elections or any of the trump team's involvement with those russian efforts. so reasonable people could conclude, and i conclude that the bottom line is that russia and comey helped trump. and russia did by sowing discord and lying to the trump family and campaigning at every turn. comey pitched in by keeping the fbi into the trump russian investigation a secret and publicly trashing secretary clip
1:47 pm
on the in july and reopening the investigation in july and reopening the investigation in october even though comey knew about the wiener e-mail a few month before finally coming out publicly that he would reopen the clinton investigation. so as far as the reason why people could conclude, james comey tipped the scales further in trump's favor. is there anything in your report that argues able this reasonable conclusion? >> senator, we don't go into the impact that had on the election. that's not our -- something that we would have any ability or expertise -- >> i say reasonable people could conclude that russia and comey helped to elect president trump. in fact, during the time of an election, president trump, candidate trump was very happy with the -- what was going on with comey and invited the
1:48 pm
russians to engage in further efforts to go after mrs. clinton. you know, i want to know, there's been calls for a special counsel. this is for you, mr. horowitz. should there be further investigations to what happened regarding the clinton investigation? >> as inspector general, that's most clearly not my decision to make. the last thing i'm going to do is step outside the authorities you've given me, the congress and the igf. >> so you can't respond to that? >> no. >> is there anything in this report that indicates that there should be another special counsel or further investigation of the clinton matter? >> well, senator, the decision about whether or not and when to appoint special counsel is reserved to the attorney general
1:49 pm
or the deputy attorney general if the attorney general is recused. one of the key take-aways is the fbi director shouldn't get out of his lane. >> so as deputy director rosenstein said to you that you should begin an invest combination into the clinton matter? >> i can't comment on my conversations with the deputy attorney general about investigations. >> thank you. >> here's where we are. i've been told that one republican and one democrat is going to still come for their first round. so i'll -- senator kennedy said he had one question and senator whitehouse said they have one question. i didn't want a second round because i thought the vote is coming up. so you go ahead, senator,
1:50 pm
kennedy with your one question and senator whitehouse with his one question and then if the other two don't show up, we'll stop. >> general horowitz, i wanted to ask you about assistant attorney general peter kadsic. i understand he was an assistant attorney general and attended all the senior staff meetings. at these meetings, the attorney general was in attendance and various investigations by the fbi were discussed. i also understand that mr. kadsic was a good friend of john podesta. mr. podesta was president obama's chief of staff and he was chairman of the hillary clinton for president campaign. and that mr. kadsic also had worked for governor dukakis,
1:51 pm
vice president walter mondale and was involved in the marc rich pardon. he asked the clinton campaign for a job for his 24-year-old son. while that job was request was pending, he sent mr. podesta a heads-up e-mail about the release of mrs. clinton's e-mails. is that -- is my understanding right? >> it is. >> did you look at mr. kadsic's telecommunication devices to see if he had other communications with mr. podesta? >> as i sit here, i don't recall. let me get become to you on that? >> would you do that? >> yes. >> did you look at mr. podesta's telecommunication devices to see if he got other communications from mr. kadsic? >> i don't believe we went to
1:52 pm
mr. podesta's communications devices as a third part. >> would you do that? >> let me talk to the team. i'll get back to you. >> my point, he already was giving inside information to the chairman of the hillary clinton campaign. he did it once. while his son's job request was pending. it would seem to be a reasonable possibility that he did it other teams as well. i'm not alleging it. i just want to know. thank you. >> thank you to our witnesses for your hard work and a long hearing. i want to begin by thank you inspector general horowitz and mr. reyes and the thousands of agents and the doj professionals that are doing dangerous jobs to investigate crimes all over the country. our country's most senior leaders, most sur law
1:53 pm
enforcement leaders are subject to scrutiny nor conduct. it bears repeating, senior i.g. staff conducted over 100 interviews and looked at 1.2 million documents and interviews with the former fbi director and attorney general. that is something that wouldn't happen in a lot of other countries and proud to be an american and proud to support the rule of law. in the united states, even the most senior officials that make mistakes are held to account. in its review, the i.g. found the former fbi director made serious accidents about the investigation into the e-mail matter. there's 37,000 hard working employees and the record takes issue with a few de-crete -- discrete situations. i'm encouraged the doj and fbi are prepared to learn lessons
1:54 pm
from this report. one conclusion, most to important are the highest and the pressures to diverse from them the greatest. those include policies to avoid interference with on going investigations. director wray, i've expressed time and again i'm concerned the department of justice is being pressured to release information to congress that could compromise the special counsel's ongoing investigation. i'm all for oversight after the conclusion of an investigation but i'd like to hear that you're committed to ensuring the bureau will not risk interference with the investigation by providing information mid stream. can you give us that assurance today? >> while on the one hand we're committed to cooperating with congressional oversight and it's a important part of our responsibility, we're also committed and obligated to
1:55 pm
protect the integrity of ongoing criminal investigations, not just the one you mentioned but others. we're also obligated to protect sources and methods and also obligated to do things like respect grand jury secrecy. we are doing everything we can to cooperate with i think maybe six different committees of congress that are investigating. we're doing everything we can be to be responsive while at the sam time making sure that we don't jeopardize other investigations. that's something that i'm committed to. >> our respect has described the fbi's investigation into campaign activities in 2016. in fact, he did it 11:27 today
1:56 pm
as a witch hunt. you and i both know the justice department has uncovered on going interference with the 2016 election, has charged 20 individuals and three companies with crimes. trump campaign and officials have admitted to acting as indisclosed agents for pro russian companies, bank fraud, tank crimes. just ask you a concluding question. do you believe the investigation in the 2016 election is important and should be completed without interference? >> i believe that mr. mueller is conducting an important investigation. the investigative work need to be completed. >> thank you. mr. horowitz, i think you'd agree with me that even the appearance of political bias
1:57 pm
within an fbi investigation is problematic, correct? >> correct. >> that's why your infest vaccination found fault in exchange of texts that you identified that demonstrated some political bias, is that right? >> correct. >> let me point out as i did that our president routinely tweets about ongoing investigations in a way that criticizes them, critiques them in and undermines them. in my view, these remarks are appropriate to undermine a federal investigation. director wray, paul manafort is now in jail. he's been charged with 25 felonies, laundering millions, encouraging witnesses to lie. the president has called this unfair. should the american people have faith that the manafort investigation is being handled fairly? >> senator, i'm not going to speak for the special counsel's office. what i would say is i expect all of our employees to conduct themselves professionally and
1:58 pm
fairly. >> does the fbi take the political opinions of fbi agents in account when choosing how to staff an investigation, have political beliefs that were influenced either your work at the fbi or which agents are chosen for a particular investigation? >> i don't use >> i don't use political litmus test. i think it's important all of our agents understand not just the importance of objectivity with the appearance of objectivity. to me that means we need to be focused on making sure we are following all rules and processes, following what whate respecter generals refers to is long established norms. the safe place is in process and making sure we follow the process. if we do that independently and objectively, no matter who likes the result, we will be okay. the important thing is to make sure our process is foolproof. >> i couldn't agree more. mr. horwitz, president trump has
1:59 pm
claimed fbi officials are biased against him and in favor of former second hillary clinton. let me make sure i have understood this. it's in your investigation, did you find that the fbi took any investigative step based on political bias against the current president? >> no. the one area where we were concerned about bias was in the october time period and the weighing of agent strzok between focusing on the russia investigation, the weiner laptop, and our concern about his decision, given the text messages. >> did you conclude that any -- that we should have concern about the initiation or ongoing conduct of the special counsel investigation based on those texts? >> we didn't look at the special counsel investigation in this revere. -- this review. >> the department policies that
2:00 pm
are in place for a reason. and it was wrong to deviate from them and it would be wrong to deviate now. >> is one of the most important takeaways. >> jesse: this is a fox news alert. hello, everybody. i am jesse watters. welcome to the "the five." we are awaiting a white house press briefing over the controversy of separating families at the border. kirstjen nielsen will be joining sarah sanders. in the meantime, we had back to the senate judiciary committee hearing underway right now on the justice department's ig report >> i'm grateful for your continued efforts to protect the integrity of the fbi, department of justice, and their important work. >> senator cruz. >>


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on